G40 Delta 1st Edition

@CWO:

@Young:

What about modernized shipyards? There would be no $ to build cheaper ships.

or

9B - Trans-Siberian Railway (void with loss of capital city)
Any number of Russian infantry, artillery, and/or AA artillery units may now move from Russia to Novosibirsk, Timguska, Yenisey, or Yakut S.S.R (if under Russian control) within a single non-combat movement. There may only be one destination per turn, and all such movements must originate from Russia.

The TSR’s terminus is in Moscow, so yes, that would have been an effect on the western end of the line…but a railway which is nearly 3,000 kilometers long wouldn’t get knocked completely out of commission just because a city at one end of it is under enemy control.

As for the shipyards, some were naval yards but many of them were operated by private industry rather than the government.  Washington DC coordinates many financial matters — the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department are situated there – but most of the US gross domestic product gets generated elsewhere.  The US would have continued to create plenty of wealth if Washington had been occupied, so there wouldn’t have been any lack of money in the GDP sense.  The US government would of necessity have relocated itself elsewhere in the country as the capital fell to the Nazis, and it would eventually have reconstituted the basic administrative infrastructure of the financial system…certainly not at peak efficiency, but enough to pay the government’s bills.

By the way, I’ll be away between now and Wednesday morning, so this will be my last post until then.  Looking forward to catching up on the discussion when I return.

For game purposes “Eastern US” includes the Brooklyn and Norfolk Navy shipyards (among others) as well as the huge population and production centers of the Northeast, so it makes sense to void advantages for the US if the territory is in enemy hands. It’s too bad the territory isn’t split into Northeast (above the Mason-Dixon Line for arguments sake) and Southeast (to include DC) territories at 14-6 values, respectively.

I guess it would be interesting for the US to have a reorganized capital in Chicago, so if it can’t have benefits at least it wont lose its treasury.

@Young:

This will be a relatively raw response to your post as I’m currently on my iPhone.

That sucks. Please do not rush on my account.

@Young:

It would be difficult for Germany to really know when Russian winter will happen unless the Russians only needed 1 more progress point. Even then (like you said) a full retreat of German infantry is to much of an anti strategy and logistic undertaking. Besides, what if Germany goes through all that trouble, and then Russia rolls snake eyes?

Well, if Russia needs 4 or fewer points to achieve their Progress advantage… they have an 67% chance of getting it. Good enough for Germany to take the gamble or at least know that it is likely coming. Feasibility of pulling back infantry is another issue, but outcomes of the next Turn Progress roll can be assumed. And snake eyes? I thought PA rolls were done with 1 die? Did I miss a revision?

@Young:

Your second example of this loop hole is a better one, but very difficult to fix. Besides, if Japan is capable of attacking the fleet with odds and the possibility of ECC is next turn, than maybe that’s the push they need in order to attack. However, if they make a suicide run just cause America is gonna get ECC, than I personally would wait and see what happens, besides, Japan has a nice PA in kamikaze honor that would defend nicely against ECCs, it’s just a matter of who gets there first. Another way of looking at it is, if you take out the carriers before hand, aren’t you basically handing him the other SO?

These are all things that would need to factor into decisions on either side. I was more just making the point that everyone knows that a given Strategic Advantage is coming and they will or might make moves based on that knowledge. I don’t see anything positive coming from this. It is an outside and uncontrollable force having influence on what happens in the game. If the Strategic Advantage system is something that proves to be workable or most people do not mind it, then I suppose my concerns do not matter.

@Young:

I totally understand what your saying about the allies abandoning cities in order to retake for $2 which would be a major problem if it became a consistent gambit. However, that is an anti strategy completely dependent on the enemy taking the bait, so this actually promotes strategies that not only take the city, but also hold the city (which ain’t a bad thing).

My comment about abandoning and re-taking was more me playing devil’s advocate than anything else. However, whether intentional or not, this will end up happening to virtually all cities in main battle areas. (IF… even retaking your own city will earn you the bonus - which is currently stated on Page 1)

If Leningrad is taken by Germany even once in the game, the Novgorod territory is worth 4 IPCs for everyone from that point on. Somebody will always be collecting that bonus… whether it be Germany, Russia from retaking it or some other Power. Same goes for Cairo, Warsaw, Stalingrad or any other city in the game. Heck, if the Japanese take Manila and the US retakes it, they will forever get 4 IPCs for having the Philippines (not to mention the 5 IPC bonus they get for having it too. That is a lot of money.)

Some method will need to be devised for showing which cities are now “active bonus cities”, where someone is collecting money from them. I suppose it could just be based on memory of who has attacked who, but seems like something to denote who has the bonus would be appropriate.

This brings up a question: Who retains the City Bonus when Britain liberates Leningrad (or an equivalent scenario)? Does Britain get it for actually taking the city? Does Russia get it because it is now a Russian territory again?

@Young:

Russia only gathers SOs when at war, and I will make the proper notes in post #1, also… in our games the rounds in which Russia gains an NO for lend lease is very limited, that’s why I split it so that there was a chance they get $5 every round for no allied units (especially now that I took the Iraq gambit away from them).

Why is it limited? In my experience the Lend Lease is not very difficult for USSR to achieve for at least 3 whole Turns. (Particularly if you separate the Allied Units rule, but even with it combined). And do you mean that Russia gets the bonus if there are no enemy warships in SZ 125 or 127? Right now your rules say if SZ 120 (which is Hudson Bay) is free of warships… don’t think that is correct.

Assuming you mean either SZ 125 or 127… Turns 1 and 2 Germany usually has subs or other ships in, or in range of, these zones. However, Russia is not typically at war yet anyway so can’t collect the bonus. By Turn 3, the Royal Navy or Air Force is generally rebuilt enough to not allow German ships to sit in those zones. Also, it typically takes Germany a minimum of 3 Turns (from the time they attack Russia) to reach Archangel. Even by Turn 4 or 5 I do not normally see Allied units in Russia… USA can barely get there yet and has other worries and Britain has her hands very full and going into Novgorod is usually out of the way. This way Russia would get 10 bonus IPCs per turn as opposed to 5. I cannot argue with your own experience, but the above has generally been mine.

All of this makes me think that there may be too many bonuses for Russia, hearkening back to the comment in my previous post.

@Young:

As far as your opinions about the R&D phase, I also like some things about it and I’ve tried my best to incorporate those ellements. I had a rule that gave 1 free dice when spending to R&D and many players attempted way more than before, but the last 5 games not one 6 got rolled and players lost a lot of money over that period of games.

That is a nice incentive. But you really need some new dice or something. Somebody put the Voodoo on those. FIVE whole games with freebie research dice for those interested (meaning at least two dice per try?), with an average of 7 Turns per game… and NOT ONE six was rolled!  Man those are some great dice for actual gameplay, but not so much on Research.  :-o

@Young:

I agree with you in the sense that our games as well are very developed by round 7 and end there or very soon after. However, some players here will play all through the night (as I did before I got married) and I wouldn’t want to deny them the excitement of late round strategies and stories. Besides, it’s much to late to make a change like doubling up on rounds.

Oh, I remember the days of playing all through the night. Still happens on occasion, but not as much because we are generally very efficient. Two people going at once… Otherwise everyone else is just twiddling their thumbs waiting for strategy to be thought out. Global games take F-O-R-E-V-E-R if you do not overlap individual turns.

But why is it too late to change to doubling up Strategic Advantage? Seems like a simple change of wording and you have done it. I thought this was a work in progress?  :wink:

1. Agree with all of your observations.
2. Now that Germany lost its “Fifth Column” which I actually didn’t like at all I would add an optional rule, which I found very historical:

German Allies

Sweden becomes a pro-Axis neutral when Moscow is captured by an Axis power.
Turkey becomes a pro-Axis neutral when Moscow is captured by an Axis power.
Spain becomes a pro-Axis neutral when London is captured by an Axis power.

Some historicans agree that Sweden, Turkey and Japan would join the war against Russia if the Moscow would have falled. Not sure about Spain but it makes sense since they didn’t join the Axis mainly because they feared what would happen to them if Germany would lost the war. (now we can say it was a pretty smart decision) Maybe the fall of London would encourage them enough to join the Axis.

Otherwise I can see Delta 99% finished from my point of view.

@Young:

R1- SA Observation

Germany choses the Airborne assault troops R1 and uses them from Paris and Western Germany to get 4 extra infantry in a sealion attempt, making the over all sealion strategy just a little less risky.

4 extra German infantry in a Sealion invasion is pretty significant in my opinion. Maybe the UK takes Increased Production, as you project, but that may not necessarily make up for the difference.

This is a thought that just came to mind:

For Paratroopers to be employed, you must have air superiority in the territory which you are attacking.

Air Superiority could be defined as a couple things…

a) a greater number of attacking fighters/tacs vs defending enemy fighters/tacs …… not so great a method

b) at least a 2-1 superiority ratio of attacker to defender fighters/tacs …… better but not ideal

c) there must be NO enemy fighters or tactical bombers in the territory being attacked…… much better

Personally, I am leaning toward option ©. Very cut and dry, no counting planes. Also, this most approximates the actual conditions in which paratroopers were employed (that I know of) in the war. Air superiority had to be achieved if the mission were to even be considered.

Note that we are talking about paratroopers specifically intended as a combat strike force… e.g. Overlord and Market Garden, which is what the paratroopers at an A&A scale would be equivalent to.

@Young:

Done, I also added that a land unit must be present to avoid infantry trying to 3 space non-combat move onto empty territories.

1A - Airborne Assault Troops
Up to 2 infantry units from a friendly operational airbase may attack an enemy territory up to 3 spaces away provided that the territory is also being attacked by land units coming from an adjacent territory, or sea zone via an amphibious assault. The territory under attack may not contain any enemy fighters, and must contain at least 1 occupying land unit.

Excellent… good revision I believe. Nice call with preventative against non-combat move into empty territories.

Wasn’t there a rule for paratroopers in some game recently that they had to stop in the first enemy controlled territory they reach?… meaning they could not just drop a bunch of guys behind the enemy front lines, especially in empty territories. The 1 enemy ground unit rule sort of addresses that, but not entirely. I know it would be incredibly annoying if you are either Germany or Russia to have guys constantly being dropped behind your lines, harassing you and blocking 2 move units from reaching the front line.

@Young:

It’s fine as long as the attacker can get units there by using other methods besides an air drop.

Yeah, that is more-or-less what I was driving at. However, it is a loophole or point of contention if it isn’t mentioned in the rule.

@LHoffman:

@Cmdr:

German Long Range Artillery: 
Fire 1 shot at 4 for each Anti-Aircraft Gun in a territory a land assault originates from, in opening fire (ie as if it was a submarine.)  Helps move those AA Guns out of the capitols, also encourages people to purchase some…not a big encouragement, but encouragement!

For about 5 whole minutes I read this and thought it was talking about artillery pieces and got very excited. Reminded me immediately of A&A D-Day.

Then I realized that it says Anti-Aircraft Gun… This would incentivize AA gun purchase, and maybe it is better to use AA guns than artillery pieces, but it does not make a lot of sense when you read it. Anti-Aircraft guns become long range artillery… and the real artillery pieces are still just that? Just a matter of words… nothing more.

Very good point.  Anti-aircraft guns are neither field artillery nor divisional artillery; their role and performance characteristics are quite different.  One possible idea, however, for making German AAA units a more attractive purchase is to have a house rule that would make them dual-purpose weapons: anti-aircraft guns, but also anti-tank weapons.  Germany discovered in WWII that its 88mm FLAK, which was intended for use as an AAA weapon, also had a superb anti-armour performance.  I think the mounting was adapted to make it easier to use in that role, and the gun itself also started being fitted to armoured vehicles like the Tiger tank and, as I recall, the tank-destroyer version of the Panther.